1. Field of the Invention
The field of this invention involves applications of automatic telephone number identification (ANI) techniques and telephone caller identification (Caller ID) techniques and. More specifically, the present invention provides a means for callers to verify if their phone number, or billing number, is being passed to the receiving party and/or if their blocking or rerouting methods to prevent this from happening are effective.
The following background information from another publication is presented in order to clarify some of the concepts, terminologies and issues as they relate to this invention.
Excerpts taken, from FCC 91-300 38241 CC Docket 91-281
Released Oct. 23, 1991
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Rules and policies regarding calling number identification service.
2. Caller ID service, calling number delivery service, calling line identification, directory number, and calling party identification are terms used interchangeably to refer to a relatively new telephone service offering which identifies the calling number to the called party. The service is most frequently referred to as caller ID service. Caller ID, currently offered on an intrastate basis, allows subscribers, when they receive local telephone calls, to have the local exchange carrier (LEC) transmit to them the telephone number of the station originating the call. The subscribers must purchase a "number identification device" which is connected to a network jack and then to the subscriber's telephone. Some telephones incorporate the number identification device into the telephone unit itself. The device displays the calling party's telephone number between the first and second ring via common channel signaling technology. Number identification devices and number identification capable telephones are customer premises equipment which manufacturers must register under Part 68 of the Commission's rules. Approximately sixteen types of such devices have been registered with the Commission. These devices currently retail for between sixty and one hundred dollars. Some models include a memory function, which can display, for example, the last fifteen telephone numbers to call the subscriber's number.
3. In addition to purchasing the number identification instrument, the customer must subscribe to Caller ID service from the LEC. The service is currently tariffed at the state level in a growing number of states at a cost ranging from approximately six to ten dollars per month. Transmission of Caller ID is made possible by the out-of-band signalling capabilities of SS7 technology being deployed by the telecommunications industry worldwide. Under current deployment schedules of the LECS, in just a few years most residential users will be served by SS7 equipped local offices. Caller ID is not yet available on an interstate basis to residential subscribers. However, a form of the service is currently available in conjunction with interexchanie carries' (IXCs') 800 a 900 service offerings which allows businesses to identify incoming customer calls. This form of the service is based upon Automatic Number Identification (ANI) technology and functions quite differently from residential Caller ID services.
4. Interstate Caller ID. The availability of interstate Caller ID service requires interconnection of the local exchange carriers' SS7 networks with interexchange carrier SS7 networks, so that the calling party's number can be transmitted from the originating end to the terminating end of the call. Effective nationwide Caller ID will not be feasible, therefore, until SS7 interconnection has become fairly ubiquitous. This interconnection process is underway, technical issues are being addressed, and some of the Bell Operating Companies (BOC's) have filed SS7 interconnection tariffs at the Commission. At least some of the BOC tariffs propose to transmit the calling party's number to IXCs as part of the SS7 signalling data. Once SS7 interconnections are in place, interstate Caller ID service will require agreement among the IXCs and the LECs regarding the transmission of Caller ID data from one carrier to another. Specifically, while the LECs may pass the calling party's number to IXCs pursuant to SS7 interconnection tariffs, the IXCs are currently under no obligation to pass that data to the terminating LEC or end user.
5. Interstate Automatic Number Identification (ANI). ANI is a service similar to but distinct from Caller ID. ANI is the billing telephone number of the calling party. It is transmitted primarily on toll/access calls on the trunk side connection to the LEC's switch. ANI has traditionally been used by LECs and IXCs to identify telephone numbers for billing purposes. ANI was designed to provided IXCs the number to bill for transmission of an interstate call. Under current technology, and due to the very nature of its original intended purposed, ANI is not blockable in the same way as Caller ID. ANI can be transmitted in-band (down the same wire path as the call) or it can be transmitted out-of-band (travels on a physically distinct path from the call) with SS7 trunking. The in-band signal is multi-frequency machine readable. The ANI information is transmitted before the dialed number. Because it precedes the call it can be used not only for billing purposes but also for routing calls to correct stations within an organization. ANI is available to IXCs and other subscribers from LECs through Feature Group D access service and Feature Group B over D access service. ANI is also available through IXCs in conjunction with 800 or 900 service. Businesses subscribing to interstate ANI service are utilizing ANI for such applications as: dealer location, to associate an incoming call with the dealer closest to the caller's location; alarm signalling, to associate an incoming call with the caller's address; data security, as a secondary means to restrict access to electronic information to calls emanating from particular numbers only; call redirection/routing capability, to transfer calls to employees handling particular geographic locations, ANI information can also be combined by the subscriber with a database of information associated with an incoming calling number. This application is used in customer service or order taking applications to match an incoming call instantly with billing information about that customer, such as account balance or prior purchases or transactions. Delivery of ANI today requires a dedicated line between the IXC and the business subscriber. This is because the ANI is transmitted directly to the subscriber of 800 or 900 service, bypassing the terminating local exchange carrier. Thus, although ANI appears on the surface to be a type of interstate Caller ID service, it differs from Caller ID in that it precedes the call by arriving at the called station before the first ring or simultaneous with the first ring, provides the billing rather than calling location number, is provided directly by the IXC only on calls that do not use a terminating LEC, and identification of ANI is not blockable by the calling party under current technology.
8. As discussed at para. 3, supra, the technology to make possible a nationwide Caller ID service is already being put in place. Interstate Caller ID would enhance the value of the service to intrastate subscribers and augment the available choices of existing interstate services to all subscribers. The ability to choose Caller ID and other services based on access to Caller ID information should be available to interstate subscribers nationally. The evidence before us indicates that several regulatory and legal issues may delay the introduction of interstate Caller ID. The Commission proposes to address these issues in the context of this NPRM to establish a national model for delivery of interstate Caller ID service.
12. Transmission of Callin Party Number. The transmission of the calling party number by the LEC to the IXC is an essential element of interstate Caller ID. The Commission tentatively concludes that LECs should be required to provide the calling party's number to IXCs as soon as technologically feasible. Delivery of the calling party's number to any terminating LEC is an equally essential element to interstate Caller ID. Therefore, the Commission proposes that IXCs should be required to transmit the calling party number to the terminating LEC as soon as technologically feasible. Such requirements are in the public interest in that they assure the physical transmission of the calling party number on all interstate calls in a uniform manner. The Commission notes that several carriers have already filed SS7 interstate access tariffs which include calling party number delivery as a component of access service.
14. Privacy. Caller ID services involve at least two competing privacy interests. First, the called party may desire to know who is calling before answering. Second, the caller may have a desire not to reveal the calling number. Thus, Caller ID services may, at times, put the called party's desire to identify the caller in conflict with the caller's desire for anonymity. We tentatively conclude that the called party, especially in the residential setting, values highly privacy in determining whether or not to allow the caller to telephonically enter the premises. This has long been recognized in conjunction with obscene, prank or harassment calls and seems increasingly reflected in consumers' desires to have the opportunity to screen out unwanted and intrusive commercial calls. We also tentatively conclude that the caller may also have a need not to disclose the calling number under certain circumstances. Thus, it is necessary to balance the privacy interest of the called party against the privacy interest of the caller in formulating any federal policy or rule. Although the states have struck the balance in varying ways, and in some states callers have no privacy protection mechanisms, the Commission tentatively proposes that interstate Caller ID service should provide some type of privacy protection mechanism. We believe that such a balancing of the privacy interest in question adequately protects the needs of the called party, ensures the viability of the service overall, and establishes a mechanism for the protection of the calling public with legitimate privacy needs such as health and safety concerns.
20. Technical Measures to Protect Privacy. Having tentatively concluded that, as a matter Of policy, non-disclosure of the calling number is in the public interest under some circumstances, we now turn to an analysis of the methods available to bar disclosure of the calling number. The two methods most often deployed in intrastate Caller ID service are per call and per line blocking. The per line blocking option bars disclosure of the calling number automatically for all calls emanating from a particular subscriber line. We tentatively conclude that the per line automatic blocking option unduly burdens the effectiveness of the service overall by failing to limit its applicability to those calling circumstances where privacy is important to the calling party. For example, in the case of law enforcement personnel, there may be a need to maintain calling number privacy on some calls, but that same line may be used to telephone other law enforcement personnel, victims of crime, cooperative witnesses, and/or family or friends. In these types of calls, calling number privacy is not needed and calling number identification can actually be a valuable piece of information for both the caller and called party. Per line blocking would undercut the usefulness of Caller ID. To a lesser degree, per call blocking will dilute the usefulness of Caller ID. For example, the per call blocking option could allow the obscene or harassing caller to continue criminal activity with impunity. In addition, the greater the number of calls placed using per call blocking, the less effective and valuable Caller ID service is overall. On the other hand, a per call blocking option should recognize the calling party's privacy concerns. The Commission seeks comment analyzing the relative merits, technical feasibility and foreseeable costs to carriers and customers of establishing a requirement that interstate Caller ID services incorporate a per call blocking option. The Commission seeks comment on whether the per call blocking option should be operator assisted or automatic and on whether it is appropriate to charge the calling party for blocking.
23. Subscriber Education. The Commission notes that regardless of the scope of the privacy interest in question and regulatory mechanism to address the issue, the public interest requires that subscribers be made aware when caller identification services become available on an interstate basis and called parties are able to identify their calling number. No segment of the calling public can adequately control dissemination of the calling number under any regulatory structure if they are unaware that their calling number is being identified. Carriers offering interstate Caller ID service, or facilitating transmission of interstate Caller ID, should be required to inform callers of the availability of the service, including instructions to callers regarding how to implement any caller privacy mechanisms. We ask what, if any, other consumer education measures should be imposed. We seek comment on whether this education requirement should fall upon local exchange carriers or interexchange carriers or both. We seek specific proposals on how these education efforts can be best effectuated, and ask parties to include cost estimates with their proposals.
27. As discussed at para. 4 supra, subscribers to 800, 900 or local exchange access service sometimes also receive the ANI associated with a call. This is a distinct offering from Caller ID service in that it is not blockable in the same ways as Caller ID and, because there is a dedicated line between the IXC and the called party, it does not involve a terminating LEC in delivering the ANI to the called party; ANI also delivers the billing as opposed to the calling number and may be delivered to the called party simultaneously with the first rings. The petition proposes that availability of ANI (and features serving the same purpose in SS7 and ISDN) should be restricted to LECs and IXCs, for the purposes of call set-up, call management, billing and maintenance. The petition suggests that all parties other than carriers who wish to identify the calling party can be offered Caller ID, under tariff where tariff regulation obtains, for any applications which entail delivery of the calling party's identity to the called party. The petition states that the calling party's number should be delivered in the same manner as ANI was previously. It adds that this will ensure continued compliance by the LECs and the IXCs with the FCC's requirements for Open Network Architecture, and minimize any network modifications with might become necessary.
29. ANI is becoming increasingly available to non-carrier subscribers to interstate services via SS7 access tariffs. Although the service is technologically distinct from Caller ID services, the impact upon the calling party is the same--identification of a number associated with the calling party. The Commission tentatively concludes that it is not feasible to implement blocking of ANI at the will of the calling party. ANI is indispensable to carriers for call billing and maintenance. Although it may be possible for IXCs not to transmit ANI to the end user, the calling party should not have the ability to block the IXC receiving ANI for billing purposes. The Commission seeks comment on privacy considerations associated with ANI service subscribers. Given that ANI service subscribers are generally 800 service subscribers, 900 subscribers, or information service providers, it is necessary to analyze whether the privacy concerns are the same for calls placed in this commercial setting. While in some ways a caller's expectation of privacy may be reduced in a business settings, in other ways privacy concerns may increase as telephone numbers become widely disseminated beyond the business originally called, and are used as a means of telephonically intruding into a customer's home. Commenters should also address the issue of whether the privacy interests are affected by the fact that in a call to an 800 service subscriber, the called party is paying for the call. In addition, 800 service subscribers have traditionally received information on the telephone numbers associated with incoming calls for billing purposes. The call is in a sense a "collect call" and it is necessary to consider this element in weighing any privacy interest associated with 800 service. In the case of 900-service, the caller is indeed paying for the call in the sense that cost of the call to the caller is ultimately based on the cost of transmission plus a premium for whatever information service is offered. In calls placed to information service providers the calling party may be paying for transmission service separately from payment for the value of the information received. Calls to information services thus may be more similar to calls placed to 900 service than calls to 800 service numbers. The Commission asks whether there are privacy interests associated with the transmission of ANI to 800 and 900 service subscribers and/or information service providers, and, if so, what approaches should be considered to address the issue.
--End of FCC excerpts--
ANI technology and Caller ID technology now make it possible for the recipient of an incoming telephone call to analyze the incoming call and learn either the billing telephone number (through ANI) of the calling telephone station, or the telephone number of the calling telephone station (through Caller ID) by the use of automated equipment. This information may then be cross-referenced, again using automatic equipment, to a variety of computer data bases permitting the recipient of the incoming call to obtain and review information associated with the indicated telephone number from the incoming call. This information associated with the incoming identified telephone numbers may include the address, the individual name, the income, the occupation, the credit history, and the in-house business accounts history of the individual associated with the number.
This technology has also been used by businesses to assemble mailing lists of callers who have telephoned the business. For example, companies selling goods or services over the phone have used this technology to automatically develop mailing lists for their call-in telephone numbers. This permits them to do follow-up direct mail promotion with the same customer base, or to sell the mailing list to others interested in doing similar direct mail marketing.
This Caller ID and ANI technology works even for unlisted numbers. When this identification technology is applied to calls from unlisted numbers, it may, in effect, undermine the secrecy and confidentiality that owners of unidentified telephone numbers obviously wish to maintain.
Many states presently have the technical means installed to permit individual users to block Caller ID, either for all calls or for certain selected calls. It is also possible to reroute ANI through third party routing firms or to prevent display of one's calling/billing number through Caller ID or ANI scrambling devices.
Caller ID services and the use of ANI is proliferating throughout the communications industry. Local calls, long distance calls, 800 numbers, 900 numbers, 976 numbers and other pay-for-call numbers are all affected. There is considerable interest in expanding this technology and it is anticipated that ANI and Caller ID display devices and blocking option technologies will be installed throughout the telephone system in the near future.
There is a recurring problem as these blocking options become available. That is, the users of telephones are not generally aware of Caller ID and ANI opportunities and identification blocking options. Furthermore, it is at this time difficult for a telephone users that requests blocking of identification of their out-going calls to verify that such blocking is taking place. Even if Caller ID blocking methods are employed on a local level, the caller's originating number is still capable of being passed by Automatic Number Identification technology.
Hence, there is a current problem both in disseminating information as to options to block Caller ID and ANI from a telephone station, and there is also a perceived problem in the inability of the user requesting blocking to verify that the blocking has been put into effect. This problem already exists on a local Caller ID level in many states, and is still unrecognized on an interstate calling basis, for no blocking methods have been developed, thus far, for interstate Caller ID or ANI transmissions.
2. Description of Prior Art
Heretofore, Caller ID and ANI devices have been designed to provide the called party with as much information about the originating call as possible. They range from displaying the calling party's telephone number(s) on a telephone or attached device, to cross-referencing the incoming telephone number with extensive databases located on local personal computers or remote mainframe systems. Call routing services and dealer locator services utilize Caller ID and/or ANI techniques for routing calls to appropriate service centers, telemarketing representatives or associated vendors. Other ANI and Caller ID related devices have been developed in order to scramble the originating telephone number or re-route the transmission of the call through a third-party agency.
The following patents are cited as prior art:
______________________________________ 5,077,788 DEC 31, 1991 Joseph Cook, 379/142 Bill D. Lavoie 5,070,525 DEC 3, 1991 Aleksander Szlam et al. 379/196 5,058,152 OCT 15, 1991 Merrill Solomon et al. 379/67 5,056,134 OCT 8, 1991 Thomas Bauer et. al. 379/246 5,056,086 OCT 8, 1991 Michael Libonai 379/88 5,048,075 SEP 10, 1991 Ronald A. Katz 379/92 5,046,088 SEP 3, 1991 Edwin Margulies 379/211 4,924,496 MAY 8, 1990 Romek Figa et. al. 379/142 4,914,689 APRIL 3, 1990 Scott Grabinger et. al. 379/142 ______________________________________
None of the references cited above present verification to the caller of the effectiveness of any Automatic Number Identification (ANI) or Caller ID blocking or rerouting methods employed by the caller.
To the contrary, the references utilize the caller's information to display/utilize the information for the calling party's purpose: presenting the information to operators; displaying the caller's digits on the called party's telephone, computer or other display device; routing the call to appropriate telemarketing representatives, service agencies or local suppliers.
Cook automatically identifies the number of the calling station and uses it to seek calling station location. The call is then conferenced with an agency station associated with the services needed, and the location information is dispatched to the agency station.
Szlam's methods circumvent the blocking techniques a telephone customer may have activated on his/her line.
Solomon has developed a method for avoiding ANI identification. This invention relates to a system and method for maintaining anonymity of a person calling another even if the receiving party has a service which provides the originating telephone number to the receiving party.
Bauer provides an audible logo for identifying a common carrier, not the calling station number.
Libonati's switch provides an interactive mass announcement based custom call routing service.
Katz's telephonic-interface statistical analysis system assigns callers random designation that are stored along with statistical and identification data for reporting purposes.
Margulies' converter extracts caller's ANI information and uses the information to handle calls of a particular type or to handle calls from a particular class of calling parties, or provides the calling party's name, address, previous transaction history, etc. to the called party.
Figa's shows an automatic telephone incoming call number display system employing a directory for displaying the identity and telephone number of a calling party.
Grabinger shows methods and telecommunications systems for identifying the calling party to the called party in a telephone system
Riskin defines a telephone system for connecting a customer to a nearby supplier of goods.
Other various forms of publicly accessible communication systems and applications utilizing ANI or Caller ID technology abound, for example:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,942,598 is a decoder which performs such operations as to selectively not respond, end, record or forward phone calls based on the calling party's originating number.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,914,689 is a another system designed to receive and display the calling party's telephone number.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,023,904 is a product ordering system.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,022,067 prevents unauthorized carrier access.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,003,595 prevents unauthorized computer access.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,014,298 organizes mail order data from callers.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,008,930 pulls information from a host database and transfers to second agent.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,001,710 enables telemarketers to retrieve caller desired information based on the calling or called number.
The present invention is unique in that it provides the caller with a means to verify if his/her calling number (or billing number) is being passed to the called party. The present invention also enables the caller to validate the efficacy of the blocking methods that were implemented at the time of the telephone call to prevent the transmission of his/her originating number to the called party.